About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
it off track when there were in fact very close. i think boehner has been very clear. i think revenues are on the table. they are at the moment drawing a line on tax rates, but we will see where that goes. the last time, you are right, didn't work and we were not facing quite the same set of circumstances we are facing today so i'm cautiously optimistic although i will offer to say lastly that people sometimes say okay, it looks like simpson-bowles, everything in between zero and $4 trillion we could end up with all kinds of outcomes that may be less than i would like and maybe less than all of you would like but at least something. i'm hoping it is more over here but i don't know. >> and steve, so we are gathered here to talk about u.s. global competitiveness. how important is resolving these issues to the american position on the global economy? >> first of all i think it's important not just our position in the global comment about our position in the world. admiral mullen who was the previous chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said our greatest national security threat was our f
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)